An accused can appear through a pleader in a summons case under Section 205 of the CrPC, and the Magistrate can state the accusation to the pleader and take the plea on behalf of the accused. The personal appearance of the accused is not mandatory at the stage of stating accusation and taking plea under Section 242 of the CrPC, especially in cases where the sentence is likely to be a fine only.

( 1 ) THIS Rule is at the instance of three accused-petitioners directed against two orders dated the 28th August, 1972 and the 29th September, 1972 passed by Sri S. C. Nundy, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Asansole in Case No. C/3912 of 1969 pending before him under section 9 (1) of eh Coal Mines Provident Fund and Bonus Scheme, 1948 for a contravention of the provisions of paragraph 11 (6) of the Coal Mines Bonus Scheme, 1948 rejecting respectively the petitioners prayer for pleading guilty and also their prayer for adjournment.

( 2 ) THE point involved are points of law arising in the context of facts which need not be set down in details excepting for a consideration of the points involved. The accused petitioners are some of the Directors of M/s. Macneill and Barry Ltd. , having its office at 2, Fairly Place, Calcutta. The said company was the Managing Agent of the M/s. Equitable Coal Co. , Ltd. , who are the owners of the Bhaladi Sand Line. The complainant-opposite party, Labour Enforcement Officer (Central) Niamatpur filed a petition of complaint in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Asansole against the abovementioned Macneill and Barry Ltd. , and the Directors of the company alleging the commission of an offence under section 9 (1) of the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Bonus Scheme, 1948 for a purported contravention of the provisions of paragraph 11 (6) of the Coal Mines Bonus Scheme, 1948 inter alia on the allegations that M/s. Equitable Coal Co. Ltd. failed to post all the prescribed particulars of employees in the Bonus Register in Form X appended to the Scheme in respect of the Bhaladi Sand Line for the quarter ending on the 30th September, 1968; that the date of appointment, father/husband's name and the home addresses of the employees were not posted in the said Register; that the above offences was noticed by the Labour Enforcement Officer (Central) Niamatpur at the time of his inspection on 28. 12. 1968; and as such the accused persons had contravened the provisions of paragraph 11 (6) of the Coal Mines Bonus Scheme, 1948 which is punishable under section 9 (1) of the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Bonus Scheme, 1948. The order of sanction was attached along with the said petition of complaint.

( 3 ) ON receipt of the said complaint the learned Magistrate took cognizance under section 190 (1a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and some of the accused including the petitioner were summoned under section 9 (1) of the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Bonus Scheme, 1948. On 24. 1. 1970 all the accused persons excepting the accused C. B. Taraporevala who was reported to have expired, appeared and on their prayer for being represented through their lawyers under section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the learned Magistrate allowed them to be so represented on execution of a bond of Rs. 100/- each. The case against the accused reported to be dead was filed by an order dated the 25. 4. 1970 and the case was transferred. The case cragged on thereafter for several dates on which the accused were represented by their lawyers under section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and when it was adjourned until 8. 1. 1971 for examination under section 242 of the Criminal Procedure Code. On 19. 8. 1972 a prayer was made on behalf of the accused persons to plead guilty through their lawyers. The learned Magistrate thereafter fixed 21. 8. 1972 for final hearing. The matter was fixed for orders and again adjourned and ultimately on 28. 8. 1972 the petition was rejected and the prayer refused. On 29. 9. 1972 a further prayer was made on behalf of the accused persons for an adjournment for sufficient time was again rejected. These orders were impugned and form the subject-matter of the present Rule which was issued by my learned brother Mr. Justice Murari Mohan Dutt on 3. 10. 1972 and all further proceedings were stayed. An affidavit-in-opposition affirmed on the 8th January, 1972 was filed on